UNVEILING OF EQUALITY:

1 CORINTHIANS 11:2-16

Thomas R Shoemaker

Abstract
Are Paul’s writings regarding women helpful for people today who look to Scripture for guidance on issues involving
human liberation? Efforts, both traditional and non-traditional, to interpret some key Pauline texts can be well served
by the present author’s proposal for the proper reading of 1 Cor 11:2-16 on the veiling of women. Supported by the passage’s
structural emphasis on verse 10 (which he translates "the woman ought to have liberty ] exousia over her head" (based
[
on the identification of a chiastic arrangement in verses 2-16, Shoemaker sees Paul’s famous discussion of veiling as including
a quote derived from those who would have women submit to veiling and accordingly to a hierarchical structure. To
this Paul responds that liberty ought not thus to be taken back from women whose equality properly follows from their
discipleship to Christ Jesus.

t is not so true today as it has been in the past, but
there are still segments of Christianity that find Paul’s
words concerning the practices and status of women to
be determinative for our own day. In conservative
Protestant circles, passages such as 1 Corinthians 7;
11:2-16; and 14:33b-36; 1 Timothy 2:9-~ 5; and Ephesians
~:22-24 create an impression which seeks to maintain
a hierarchical ordering of the sexes. Few denominations
still require women to be veiled yet the section on veil-
ing in 1 Corinthians 11 continues to exert an influence
in two significant ways. On the one hand, for those who
accept a hierarchical understanding of sexuality the
passage is a favorite substantiating text, especially verse
3. On the other hand, for those who reject such a hier-
archy, Paul as a theologian becomes a distasteful part
of the biblical traditions. Often these persons have such
a disdain for &dquo;Paul’s view of women&dquo; that they reject his
letters as a body. Here, we ask the question, &dquo;Is there
another option?&dquo;
Three Streams of Interpretation
Linda Mercadante assembled a helpful book a few
years back that attempted to summarize the history of
the interpretation of this particular passage, from the
publication of John Calvin’s commentary on 1 Corin-
thians in the 16th century to the present. Ms. Merca-
dante set forth two categories of interpretation: the
traditional school and the non-traditional school. Within
the latter she further distinguished between those who
hold a conviction that &dquo;the problem is Paul&dquo; and those
who hold that &dquo;the problem is us&dquo;-that is, that it is our
understanding of Paul that is inadequate.
The traditional school (Calvin, Hurley, Barret, et al.;
Mercadante) has adopted the belief that not only is this
passage to be read as Paul’s assertion of the placement
of women in a hierarchical position beneath that of men,
but also that this passage is and should be normative for
the Church today. Given this interpretation, GaJatians
3:28ff. is to be understood as a spiritual or eschatological
statement of equality; or in Calvin’s statement, the
kingdom of God &dquo;has nothing to do with the body,
nothing to do with men’s physical relationships with
each other ... but it is concerned wholly with the spirit&dquo;
(229-230). Common to all traditional interpretations are
( 1 ) a conviction that there is no inherent conflict between
this passage and 1 Corinthians 14:34-40 where Paul
appears to forbid the practice of women praying in
church, (2) the translation of exousia in verse 10 as an
object that is worn symbolizing acceptance of a hier-
archical sexuality, an interpretation that is at best prob-
lematic, and (3) a reading that, like the majority of
non-traditional interpreters, assumes the words of verses
4-9 to be the instruction of Paul to the Corinthian
Church.
While in agreement with the traditional school at this
last point, the non-traditional school (Stendahl, Jewett,
Glen, et al.; Mercadante) has emphasized the problems
inherent in the context of this passage within the Pauline
corpus as a whole. The &dquo;problem is Paul&dquo; wing of this
school generally begins with those passages that empha-
size the quality that comes as a result of the Christ event
(such as Galatians 3:28 and the Pauline statement of
Ephesians 2:14-16). In light of this interpretive starting
Thomas P. Shoemaker, an M.Div. candidate at Luther North-
western Theological Seminary, St. Paul, MN, is currently an
intern
intern at Bethel Lutheran Church, 7310 N. 27th Avenue,
; t
Phoeniz, AZ 85021.

60

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2015


point, those in this wing are moved to state that the
passage, read entirely as an authentic statement of Paul,
is a failure on Paul’s part to carry through in a consis-
tent manner with the insights he expressed elsewhere.
This group thus attempts to dispense with the traditional
school’s distinction between &dquo;spiritual&dquo; and &dquo;physical&dquo;
realities. Thus Calvin upholds a distinction between the
created order and the kingdom reality.
Interestingly, this appears to be where Jane Dempsey
Douglass would classify Calvin’s convictions. She argues
from his Institutes that Calvin actually chose to disagree
with Paul’s position on head coverings at several points,
but allowed that human custom and context might allow
such practice as &dquo;decorum.&dquo; Nonetheless, she reads
Calvin as maintaining a sexual hierarchy in creation’s
order that gives substantial basis for Paul’s sanction of
head coverings (34). Such a distinction, Glen argues, is
in danger of diminishing Paul’s insistence on the equality
of Jew and Gentile (137). This wing does little to
appropriate the text for our own experience, other than
to point to the negative: Here Paul shows us by his
example what we are not to be. It is an unfortunate case
of Paul the rabbi proving victorious over Paul the apostle,
and as such, Paul and this text are to be rejected.
The other wing of the non-traditional school is a varied
lot, but is in agreement that the issue is one of interpreta-
tion, not of the material being interpreted. Of this group,
Robin Scroggs takes the largest steps toward an inter-
pretation of this text that places Paul firmly in the
feminist camp. Scroggs maintains that Paul recognized
distinctions between male and female without placing
a valuation on either. Scroggs’s translation of exousia is
quite compatible with the position we are taking, but
there are nonetheless several points on which we will
maintain against Scroggs, and many of the other &dquo;prob-
lem is us&dquo; interpreters. First, Scroggs states that &dquo;the logic
is obscure at best and contradictory at worst,&dquo; and &dquo;the
word choice is peculiar, the tone is peevish&dquo; (297).
Second, Scroggs concedes that verses 4 and 5 are indeed
an argument for head coverings, based, however, on
natural distinctions rather than hierarchy. And third,
because of their inconsistency, Scroggs attributes the
other difficult male/female texts in Paul’s writing to
&dquo;deutero-Pauline&dquo; sources (including Ephesians 5:22ff.,
Colossians 3:18, and passages in the pastoral epistles, but
also 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36).
A New Proposal
Such concessions may not be necessary. There are
three indications that the text could function as a &dquo;femi-
nist,&dquo; or better, as a &dquo;Christian egalitarian&dquo; statement,
without the difficulties and contradictions encountered
in the non-traditional approaches.
The first of these is the translation of certain key
Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2015
61
terms. Perhaps the most unusual circumstance sur-
rounding the traditional understanding of this passage
is the insistence on interpreting exousia as &dquo;veil&dquo; (RSV),
&dquo;symbol of authority&dquo; (NKJV~, and &dquo;covering&dquo; (TEV). Of
the 102 times this word occurs in the Second Testament,
this is the only occasion in which these versions trans-
late in such a manner. Paul uses the word at sixteen other
points in his letter, and half of those are in 1 Corinthians.
The various translations of these other occurrences are
&dquo;power&dquo; (consistently in KJV), &dquo;liberty&dquo; (8:9), &dquo;right&dquo; (9:4,
5, 6, 12), and &dquo;authority&dquo; (9:18; 15:24) (all RSV). In every
Pauline usage apart from 1 Corinthians 11:10 the usage
is an abstract reality, or one who has that abstract real-
ity. Thus, if one is to follow that tendency in Paul’s usage,
there are two possibilities: ( 1 ) &dquo;A woman ought to have
an authority (that is, someone or something which has
vested in it the abstract reality of authority) upon (or
over) her head&dquo; or (2) &dquo;A woman ought to have liberty
(or &dquo;right&dquo; or &dquo;authority&dquo;), that is, her own control, over
her head.&dquo; In light of the other factors listed below, I
would opt for the latter.
Those who would read this passage as Paul’s assertion
of a hierarchical sexuality generally understand the dia
touto (&dquo;This is why&dquo;) at the beginning of verse 10 as refer-
ring backward to the arguments of verses 3-9. In light
of this, the dia tous angelous (&dquo;because of the angels&dquo;)
at the end of verse 10 is a grammatical affront, having
only a tack-on relationship to the rest of the verse.
However, Paul uses the phrase dia touto fourteen times
in his Second Testament epistles, of which 1 Thessa-
lonians 2:13; 3:5; 1 Corinthians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 4: 1;
Philemon 15; and Romans 4:16 should be understood as
pointing to reasons following. To look ahead for the
reason leads us to the otherwise difficult dia tous
angelous as that reason.
Joseph Fitzmyer has argued strongly that this phrase
is an argument based on the holiness of the angels,
because in the worship gathering bodily defect and afflic-
tions are unworthy. Fitzmyer maintains that this is
Paul’s reason for having women wear veils-to pray
without a covering &dquo;is an unnatural condition.&dquo; This,
however, does not give full consideration to verse 14,
where Paul appeals to the natural order as providing an
uncovered woman with an inherent glory-her long hair.
To cover that glory is the unnatural condition that would
be unworthy of the holy angels. Nevertheless, Fitzmyer
has helped to clear up the role of the final clause in verse
10 by showing it to be an argument of some force for the
Jewish community in Paul’s day, albeit an argument
against veiling, not for it.
Another term that should be noted is plgn (v. 11).
Although generally translated &dquo;only&dquo; or &dquo;nevertheless,&dquo;
I believe this particle takes on a special rhetorical func-
tion for Paul. Although used only four times in his letters
(Philippians 1:18; 3:1G; 4:14; and here), it appears to serve
as a pointer in each case to an important statement. It
62
is a term that introduces Paul’s central theme in each
context. Thus, here I have chosen to render it &dquo;The
point is.&dquo;
A further term calling for attention is anti ( 11:15). The
RSV’s &dquo;her hair is given to her for a covering&dquo; does not
evoke the strong sense in the word of replacement. Here
I suggest the use of &dquo;in place of&dquo; or &dquo;instead of&dquo; as a trans-
lation, so as to emphasize the basic thrust of anti as
indicating &dquo;that one person or thing is, or is to be,
replaced by another&dquo; (Bauer: 73).
A final subtle shift in translation occurs at verse 16,
where toioutos is translated &dquo;other.&dquo; The use of &dquo;other&dquo;
is quite unusual; as an adjective toioutos is best
translated &dquo;such&dquo; or &dquo;sort of&dquo; (Bauer: 821 ) - hence, &dquo;We
have no such practice, nor do the churches of God&dquo; (see
KJV). The use of &dquo;other&dquo; creates an affirmation of the
practice in question, whereas the use of &dquo;such&dquo; makes
clear that the custom in question was inconsistent with
the practice of the churches with which Paul was
familiar.
With these considerations in mind, I have translated
the passage thus:
I commend you that you remember me always and you
hold fast to the traditions just as I handed them on to you.
&dquo;And I want you to know that Christ is the head of
every man, and the head of a woman is the man, and
the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or
prophesying while having something on the head
shames his head, and every woman praying or proph-
esying with an uncovered head shames her head. For
it is one and the same as being shaved. If, therefore,
a woman does not cover, let her be shorn. But if it is
disgraceful to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her
be covered. For a man ought not to cover the head,
being the image and glory of God, but the woman is
the glory of man. For man was not made from woman,
but woman from man; and man was not created for
woman, but woman for man.&dquo;
This is why a woman ought to have liberty over her head:
because of the angels. The point is there is neither woman
apart from man, nor man apart from woman in the Lord.
For just as the woman is from the man, so also the man
is by the woman-and all are from God. Decide for
yourselves, is it proper for a woman to be uncovered when
she prays to God? Does not nature itself teach you that
if a man has long hair it is to his dishonor, but if a woman
has long hair it is to her glory. For long hair has been given
to her instead of a covering. And if anyone thinks to be
contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the
churches of God.
This translation sets up a different feel to the section
from 11:10 through 11:16. But this raises a question
about the intended relationship betwen 11:2-9 and
11:10-16. If 11:10-16 is to be read as a statement of
egalitarian practice in the body of Christ, how can this
be reconciled with a section that so clearly marks out
a hierarchical structure as 11:2-9? A look at the structural
Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2015
make-up of the entire passage may help. The passage has
been written in chiastic form:
A (2-3) Introduction
B (4-7) &dquo;woman,&dquo; &dquo;uncovered,&dquo; &dquo;to pray,&dquo; &dquo;man,&dquo;
&dquo;glory&dquo;
C (8a) not &dquo;man from woman&dquo;
D (8b) &dquo;woman from man&dquo;
E (9a) not &dquo;man on account of woman&dquo;
F (9b) &dquo;woman on account of man&dquo;
X ( 10) For this reason, and because of
the angels, the woman ought to
have liberty over her head.
F’ (1Ia) &dquo;Neither woman apart from man&dquo;
E’ ( 1 lb) &dquo;nor man apart from woman&dquo;
D’ ( 12a) &dquo;just as the woman is from the man&dquo;
C’ (12b) &dquo;thus also the man is through the
woman&dquo;
B’ (13-15) &dquo;woman,&dquo; &dquo;uncovered,&dquo; &dquo;to pray,&dquo; &dquo;man,&dquo;
&dquo;glory&dquo;
A’ (16) Conclusion
The center sections of the structure (8a-12b) have long
been recognized (see Lund: 41), as have other uses of
chiastic structure in Paul, especially in 1 Corinthians.
Lund notes such structuring in 5:2-6 (146), 6:12-14 ( 145),
7:1-40 (151f.), 9:19-22 (147), and 11:34-14:40 (163f.). Here,
the questions are raised concerning parallels B-B’ and
A-A’. B-B’ is made evident by the repetitions in each of
gyne, akatakalyptos, proseuchomai, aner, and doxa.
That would leave only A-A’, and I will readily admit the
absence of repetitions here, and would simply argue that
A is Paul’s opening statement (cf. verse 17) whereas A’
is the closing of the discussion.
In Nils Lund’s work on chiasm, he offers seven &dquo;laws&dquo;
of chiastic structures. Two in particular concern us here.
The first, he states, is &dquo;The center is always the turning
point.&dquo; And the second is that &dquo;at the centre there is often
a change in the trend of thought, and an antithetic idea
is introduced&dquo; (40-41). A classic use of these laws is Isaiah
55:7-8 (Lund: 45), where the shift moves from the way
and the thoughts of the wicked, to the thoughts and the
ways of Yahweh. In 1 Corinthians 11, it is most likely
that the structuring reveals a similar intention. Paul has
offered in B through F an argument that clearly calls for
feminine submissiveness on the issue of veiling, but in
verse 10 the movement turns, and an antithetical idea
is introduced. The second half of the structure, then, is
Paul’s statement that women should not submit to the
demands of veiling (F’ through B’).
Still, the problem of reconciliation of the two sections
confronts us. But it seems that Neal Flanagan has come
up with an answer that allows the puzzle to take form.
In a brief article on 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36, Neal
Flanagan maintains that a Corinthian faction made state-
ments to the effect that women had no right to speak
within the worship assembly. To deal with the issue,
 63

Paul first quotes the Corinthian faction’s position (vv. Calvin, John
34-35), then proceeds to refute their argument with the 1960 The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. Edin-
question &dquo;Did the Word of God originate with you?&dquo; burgh: Oliver and Boyd.
(&dquo;you&dquo; being masculine plural). In a similar way, 1 Corin- Douglass, Jane Dempsey
thians 6:12a is the quote, l2bff. is Paul’s response. 1 Cor- 1984 Women, Freedom, and Calvin. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press.
inthians 8:1a is the quote, 8:lbff. is Paul’s response. To
the faction that would have women submit to veiling, Fitzmyer, Joseph A.
1957 "A Feature of Qumran Angelology and the Angels
Paul says no-their liberty (in Christ Jesus) is not to be of 1 Cor. XI. 10," New Testament Studies 4, 48-58.
seized from them. His response is based on the interrela- Flanagan, Neal
tionship between man and woman, on man’s dependence 1981 "Did Paul Put Women Down in 1 Corinthians
on woman for birth, on nature’s gift of a veil of hair, and 14:34-36?" Biblical Theology Bulletin 11, 10-12.
lastly on the fact that no one else, anywhere in the Glen, J. Stanley
churches of God, demands such submission to a sexual 1964 Pastoral Problems in First Corinthians. Phila-
hierarchy. delphia: Westminster Press.
It may never be possible to solve all the questions that Lund, Nils
now confront the Church about this passage. But Paul
1941 Chiasmus in the New Testament. Chapel Hill:
should not be so quickly awarded a place of honor among University of North Carolina Press.
those who would oppose an egalitarian practice both Mercadante, Linda
1978 From Hierarchy to Equality. Vancouver: G-M-H
inside and outside church walls. There are too many Books.
plaguing problems surrounding the traditional interpre- Scroggs, Robin
tation of this passage for it to be so easily assumed. Paul 1972 "Paul and the Eschatological Woman," Journal of
the theologian of baptismal equality, Paul the pastor of the American Academy of Religion 40, 283-303.
reconciliation, and Paul the master rhetorician all seem
to say the opposite.

Source Material

Bauer, Walter
1979 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago:
University of Chicago.

Downloaded from btb.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 14, 2015